Ralph versus Bob

David Weigel | October 30, 2008

The non-blackout continues: Bob Barr will debate Ralph Nader at the University of Akron. (Months ago Barr declined to debate anyone but McCain and Obama, but as more and more people proposed third party debates he expanded the circle to cover Nader.)

It starts at 4:30 p.m. ET and the live stream is here.

Comments

24AheadDotCom\'s case against |10.30.08 @ 4:32PM|#

I'm watching it right now. Nader has Barr in a double flying Nelson and is moving in for his patented Hammer Lock [tm].

But seriously: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Next time, the LP should consider running someone who isn't a complete and utter fake.

|10.30.08 @ 4:35PM|#

So Barr decided to sit at the kiddie table after all...

|10.30.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Worst LP presidential candidate ev-er.

|10.30.08 @ 4:53PM|#

So why are you "blacking out" Chuck Baldwin? I don't like the guy, but reason's coverage is misleading and portrayed this as a Nader vs. Barr debate.

|10.30.08 @ 5:11PM|#

Isn't Baldwin going to be there? I'm no fan of the most misnamed political party in history either, but refusing to even acknowledge that he'll be there is childish. Barr is doing the same thing. What is he going to do when he gets there, refuse to speak to Baldwin? Pretend he doesn't exist?

What Barr should *really* do is tear Baldwin a new one on the numerous important differences between the LP and the CP. Push him about the CP's all-but-explicitly theocratic platform, and the fact that he basically wants to seal the border not just against immigrants, but against almost all international trade. Don't let him get away with portraying himself as the liberty candidate.

Boston|10.30.08 @ 5:18PM|#

Andy, on Barr's website he mentions that Baldwin will be there. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about.

Warty|10.30.08 @ 5:23PM|#

Ralph Nader is more annoying that I realized.

|10.30.08 @ 5:24PM|#

Shit. I wish I knew of this before, because I live about 5 minutes from the University of Akron. I would have loved to meet Barr.

sage|10.30.08 @ 5:26PM|#

It's bad enough listening to Nader, but when the webcast makes him sound like a stuttering drunk retard it...actually is an improvement. Let me click back over there.

24AheadDotCom|10.30.08 @ 5:27PM|#

"Fabio's steamy crush on Madeline Albright."

"NYT finally admits they know nothing."

"I would have loved to meet Barr."

Warty|10.30.08 @ 5:33PM|#

DAMN YOU TO HELL, LONEWACKOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

|10.30.08 @ 6:14PM|#

# Warren | October 30, 2008, 4:38pm | #
# Worst LP presidential candidate ev-er.

Oh you silver-tongued devil! I'll bet you say that on H&R about ALL the LP presidential candidatates!

Hey, wait a minute...!

|10.30.08 @ 6:16PM|#

# Erÿk Boston, Esq. | October 30, 2008, 4:35pm | #

# So Barr decided to sit at the kiddie table
# after all...

Having viewed as much of the debate as I could get given my connection problems, I have to say that I got the impression that the adults had adjourned to the kiddie table so that the kids could play dress-up dinner party. Except that McCain isn't so much of a kid, unless second-childhood counts.

|10.30.08 @ 6:22PM|#

An advantage of a Nader/Barr debate, had it happened weeks ago, would have been to have a long-form program that hundreds of local access TV channels could run on cable systems across this country. Some places that wouldn't touch Nader with a ten foot pole might more readily do so if Barr and Baldwin were around to leaven the bread. By the same token, here in Santa Cruz CA, the ultra-progressives would be happier to slip an appearance by Barr into their program schedule if Nader were there to represent the Progressive view.

If I can get a DVD of today's debate, I will still try to put it on our system here before election day (tens of thousands of subscribers, county-wide), but the timing of this event hasn't left me much maneuvering room.

Timon19|10.30.08 @ 6:29PM|#

Son of a bitch! I'm mere minutes away from campus, but I only learn about this 2 hours after the fact. Dammit!

|10.30.08 @ 6:31PM|#

Andy Craig wrote, "What Barr should *really* do is tear Baldwin a new one on the numerous important differences between the LP and the CP. Push him about the CP's all-but-explicitly theocratic platform, and the fact that he basically wants to seal the border not just against immigrants, but against almost all international trade. Don't let him get away with portraying himself as the liberty candidate."

Although the tone of the debate was a lot more cordial and agreeable than that, Baldwin was pretty forthright about a seal-the-borders policy, trying to pin some blame for the home mortgage financial crisis on illegal immigrants, and calling for us to abandon NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, and set up protective tariffs. If Barr had initially thought to expose Baldwin and hold CP positions up to examination, if not ridicule, I think Chuck saved him the effort. As nice as he sounded personally, Chuck Baldwin's positions came off as being very extreme -- albeit perhaps with a strong constituency in Ohio.

Of the three, I think Bob Barr was likeliest to be seen as the "liberty" candidate, Baldwin as the "God & Country" candidate, and Nader as the Socialist. Nader, too, "outed" himself as essentially socialst (in a "good" way, he thought, by calling government run by private interests "fascist" or national socialism -- the "bad" socialism).

I wish these guys had had 90 minutes instead of the 60 they got. This debate struck me as being a hell of a lot more interesting and substantive than the stage-managed CPD events.

Then again, the connection problems really made it difficult to judge the ebb and flow of the debate. I am looking forward to the C-SPAN reruns. Before election day, I hope!

|10.30.08 @ 8:39PM|#

Worst LP presidential candidate ev-er.

Not by a fucking longshot. Go get kinky with your Badnarik blowup doll.

MAX HATS|10.30.08 @ 10:32PM|#

Truly it's a shame that these two first rate minds and honorable statesmen of record were shut out of the major party debate, despite the certainty that they will each garner literally tens of votes.

As a Libertarian, I find no contradiction in demanding that the private entity of the Presidential Debate Commission compel the country as a whole to suffer through equal time given to my candidate's vanity run, despite that candidate being the choice of only a tiny strata of the country.

Democracy now!

Guy Montag|10.30.08 @ 11:18PM|#

Worst LP presidential candidate ev-er.

So, was LaRouche a "real" LP guy or not? I have been fuzzy about this since before those guys in Chicago jumped on the ticket with a candidate for Governor(?) in the 1980s and were trying to "inform the masses" that they, the masses, were confused by the Libertarians being "somehow associated with" Mr. LaRouche.

Guy Montag|10.30.08 @ 11:30PM|#

I guess Janice Hart and Mark Fairchild were LaRouche folk, but I thought they were trying to distance themselves from LaRouche or something back then.

|10.31.08 @ 10:01AM|#

LaRouche once ran as the "Labor Party" Candidate before joing the Democrats.He has never been in the Libertarian Party that I know of.